What's with the "can you hear me now" guy?

On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 17:36:57 GMT, "N9WOS"
<n9wos@nobug.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>If they actually use the information is questionable.
>If they actually trust the data, then they are running
>around half blind.
>Blinded by their own ignorance.

So, tell me...how's come some unidentified guy in a newsgroup knows
this, and the nation's largest wireless phone company does not?

Actually, Merriam-Webster shows this for its first entry under "geek":
"Etymology: probably from English dialect geek, geck fool, from Low =
German geck, from Middle Low German"
"Date: 1914"
"1 : a carnival performer often billed as a wild man whose act usually =
includes biting the head off a live chicken or snake"

In fairness, their second definition does involve technologists, though.
---JRC---

"Mij Adyaw" <NoSpam@NoSpam.org> wrote in message =
news%8fb.11274$Rd4.1749@fed1read07...
> Yes,
>=20
> But they are still Geeks (Geek is the politically correct term for =
"nerd")
>=20
>

> So, tell me...how's come some unidentified guy in a newsgroup knows
> this, and the nation's largest wireless phone company does not?

Did I ever say they didn't know it???????????????
I was say that "IF" they actually used the data,
they would be running around half blind.

But I don't know if they do or not.

I am just saying that the "test people"
stuff should be taken as pure advertising.
If it is on the commercials, or that official looking
stuff on their web site.
None of them are actual credible testing methods.

But.....
IF the stuff on the web site is the actual method they use.
Then they really need help.

BTW........
What do you mean by "unidentified"??????
It's not like I am hiding my identity. :-0

"Rich" <mathwhiz@mathwhiz.org> wrote in message =
newsX6fb.393014$2x.133059@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
> PistolPete wrote:
> > Verizon can't really test their network this way? It's totally non-
> > technical. What if they could not hear him, what would he do? Does =
he carry=20
> > a GPS system? I would think that network testing would involve much =
more=20
> > sophisticated equipment and procedures.=20
>=20
> The can you hear me now guy is just an advertising person. Click here =
> =http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/aboutUs/imagegallery/networkQuality.js=
p=20
> to see some pictures of the true test equipment.
>=20
> Rich
>

Let me defend N9WOS a bit.
As do most Radio Amateurs, he likely has considerable experience
with wave propagation and field-strength measurement.
What he said is quite accurate regarding calibrated measurements.

Now let me defend Verizon Wireless a bit, too.
It's perfectly believable to me that the Verizon people need only
to obtain *relative* measurements of their cell-coverage patterns.
For that, they need only to use simple probe antennas with reliable
and repeatable patterns.
(I want to believe that the Verizon technicians have at least verified
that their probes carry reasonably omni-azimuthal patterns.)

The *absolute* field strengths throughout the coverage area of a cell
can be adjusted up or down by altering the transmitter output,
reducing any need for absolute measurements in the field.
The transmit power of the hand-held unit is adjusted dynamically
by the cell controller, of course.
---JRC---

>It's perfectly believable to me that the Verizon people need only
>to obtain *relative* measurements of their cell-coverage patterns.
>For that, they need only to use simple probe antennas with reliable
>and repeatable patterns.

There is one problem with that, you can compensate for the variation
in field pattern when you know where the signal is coming from.
Then you can take that direction and multiply it by the gain constant
for that angle from the car.

But when you are driving around, you don't know where the
actual signal may be coming from.

If an antenna on one side of the car is receiving a cell site
broadside from the car, the signal level can vary as much or
more than 40DB depending on which side the car is facing the tower.

And you can't compare the signal coming from two antennas
mounted on opposite sides of the car.

That isn't even talking about the intermod problems you would
have with the signals from the other cell phones assaulting the
front ends of the neighboring phones.
If kinda reminds me of an antenna setup I put up when I was young.
I stacked a bunch of antennas right close to each other on the top of a
tower.
I think I had a 10M 6M 2M 220Mhz 440Mhz and 1.2Ghz antenna
They all worked about the same.
They all did horribly.

Below, I re-inserted my phrase about omni-azimuthal patterns,
which you snipped out.
I meant for that to point out exactly what you said.
But your explanation of the need to know the probe pattern is correct.

However, your 40-dB number would be more appropriate for HF/VHF
antennas where the vehicle is part of the antenna resonance.
At UHF, it would take a particularly egregious installation
to mess up the probe pattern anything near that badly.

Intermodulation and de-sensitizing needn't be problems, either.
Remember the 1960s solution of an attenuator pad ahead of the first rf =
amplifier?
Today's receivers have much wider dynamic ranges than the old ones,
but even if they didn't, simple solutions are readily available.
Field probing isn't normally performed down near the noise levels.

"N9WOS" <n9wos@nobug.worldnet.att.net> wrote in message =
news:fQkfb.162954$0v4.12277946@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >It's perfectly believable to me that the Verizon people need only
> >to obtain *relative* measurements of their cell-coverage patterns.
> >For that, they need only to use simple probe antennas with reliable
> >and repeatable patterns.
=3D=3D=3D> un-snipped <=3D=3D=3D
(I want to believe that the Verizon technicians have at least verified
that their probes carry reasonably omni-azimuthal patterns.)
=3D=3D=3D>
>=20
> There is one problem with that, you can compensate for the variation
> in field pattern when you know where the signal is coming from.
> Then you can take that direction and multiply it by the gain constant
> for that angle from the car.
>=20
> But when you are driving around, you don't know where the
> actual signal may be coming from.
>=20
> If an antenna on one side of the car is receiving a cell site
> broadside from the car, the signal level can vary as much or
> more than 40DB depending on which side the car is facing the tower.
>=20
> And you can't compare the signal coming from two antennas
> mounted on opposite sides of the car.
>=20
> That isn't even talking about the intermod problems you would
> have with the signals from the other cell phones assaulting the
> front ends of the neighboring phones.
> If kinda reminds me of an antenna setup I put up when I was young.
> I stacked a bunch of antennas right close to each other on the top of =
a
> tower.
> I think I had a 10M 6M 2M 220Mhz 440Mhz and 1.2Ghz antenna
> They all worked about the same.
> They all did horribly.
>=20
>

"PistolPete" <ppete@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94092EF833C9pegomaccom@199.184.165.241...
> Verizon can't really test their network this way? It's totally non-
> technical. What if they could not hear him, what would he do? Does he
carry
> a GPS system? I would think that network testing would involve much more
> sophisticated equipment and procedures.

Don't forget, they are dealing with the public, mostly non-technical people
who can hardly find the on - off button on the phone, let alone scroll
through the phone book or utilize the voice dialer correctly.
I don't know how many times I have had to explain the *228 monthly routine.
Most of 'em keep the phone with them turned off "I have it for emergencies"
they say, and you never can reach them on it, These people never develop
good battery charging habits and when they need to use the phone the battery
goes dead quickly, they never learn.
Know anyone like this? You know, the guy who always has the cig lighter
adapter always hanging out ready to go because he cannot to save his life,
remember to charge it up the night before.
This is why ads must be "dumbed" down.
It's a neat saying though, like when yelling at the kids or your employees,
finish your bitch session with a "Can you hear me now?"

>However, your 40-dB number would be more appropriate for HF/VHF
>antennas where the vehicle is part of the antenna resonance.
>At UHF, it would take a particularly egregious installation
>to mess up the probe pattern anything near that badly.

You are most likely right.
But the effect of the other antennas on that roof will be unpredictable
Especially if the unused ones are not terminated properly.
I'll stick with a 20db figure then.
>Intermodulation and de-sensitizing needn't be problems, either.
>Remember the 1960s solution of an attenuator pad ahead of the first rf
amplifier?
>Today's receivers have much wider dynamic ranges than the old ones,
>but even if they didn't, simple solutions are readily available.
>Field probing isn't normally performed down near the noise levels.

Another thing to consider is spurious emissions.
Normally the phone maker designs the system so
that any spurs that are transmitted won't bother
with the receiver.
(ie) Far enough away from the RX frequency
at any channel setting.

But with that setup, you can't guaranty that a phone
won't pick up a spur from another phone.

That guy also appears in a Sprint commercial revealing one of the VZW
fraud adds.
As for the mobile test cars this is irrational. Other cell phone
companies are complaining that VZW has been making too many phone calls
on their systems, and may be contributing to overloads. Yet every cell
phone outfit uses similar ploys. No one wants to do any real impact
studies as this could bring about industrial espionage claims.

PistolPete <ppete@yahoo.com> wrote in article
<Xns94092EF833C9pegomaccom@199.184.165.241>:
> Verizon can't really test their network this way? It's totally non-
> technical. What if they could not hear him, what would he do? Does he carry
> a GPS system? I would think that network testing would involve much more
> sophisticated equipment and procedures.

wmbray@hotmail.com (William Bray) wrote in
news:vnsdpqq9lpkn4b@corp.supernews.com:
> That guy also appears in a Sprint commercial revealing one of the VZW
> fraud adds.
> As for the mobile test cars this is irrational. Other cell phone
> companies are complaining that VZW has been making too many phone
> calls on their systems, and may be contributing to overloads. Yet
> every cell phone outfit uses similar ploys. No one wants to do any
> real impact studies as this could bring about industrial espionage
> claims.
>
> PistolPete <ppete@yahoo.com> wrote in article
><Xns94092EF833C9pegomaccom@199.184.165.241>:
>> Verizon can't really test their network this way? It's totally non-
>> technical. What if they could not hear him, what would he do? Does he
>> carry a GPS system? I would think that network testing would involve
>> much more sophisticated equipment and procedures.
>
> [posted via phonescoop.com]
>

I would hope that they update those phones from time to time. The
Qualcomm QCP-series phones shown in those pics have RF chipsets that
haven't been manufactured in years, and are definitely not capable of
making a 1x voice call. True, some old Qualcomm handsets are still out
there, but testing using that equipment doesn't represent a good chunk
of your users (and just so everyone knows, the other handsets in the pic
are GSM, TDMA and iDEN phones, to test the networks of Verizon's
competitors... and they look pretty dated, too).

Since we all know that the phone is just as important to RF quality as
the network, continuing to use those things is probably as accurate as
the "Can you hear me now?" method.

PistolPete wrote:
> Verizon can't really test their network this way? It's totally non-
> technical. What if they could not hear him, what would he do? Does he carry
> a GPS system? I would think that network testing would involve much more
> sophisticated equipment and procedures.

Good gawd, it's just advertising. Of course that's not how they test
their network!

Do you believe the beer commercials, too? Or worse, do you also believe
the Nextel "80,000 foot tower" ads?